If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Horcrux Question!!

OKAY - We know that a Horcrux is made by the splitting of a soul through the murder of another person. We also know that Harry was inadvertently made into a Horcrux. So my question is...

Would it be possible that the creation of life (as in, Harry having children) be as soul-altering (changing, splitting, merging, what have you) as the murder of another? Would it be enough to, say, pass along a part of the piece of Voldemort's soul to his children (assuming Harry had children before Voldemort was destroyed)?

...Even if it's not quite canon, would it be a plausible plot line, or am I barking up the wrong tree completely?

To be honest, I really don't know but I don't think so. Souls are completly different from genetics, and what is passed onto children. They are more person specific if you know what I mean, no sould is the same and they can't be passed on. Okay, so I know I'm making no sense at all but bear with me.

Also, I think horcruxes can only be made by Dark Magic and I really don't think that something as pure as having a child could really be the same as murdering someone.

However, if you could really think of plausible reasons of why this has happened then you could maybe get away with it. It would be really hard though.

In making a Horcrux, the Horcrux uses/is made from a piece of soul that has broken away from your whole soul. Dumbledore explains repeatedly (in DH) how killing breaks the soul.

It's not just about being a life changing decision or event, but about the actual act of breaking your soul.

As to the Horcrux affecting Harry's offspring - no, too. I think of the Horcrux being something like a shard that's lodged in Harry. When he 'dies', it is removed, and Harry remains more or less the same - minus the Parseltongue and the Voldemort-episodes. It's like when you break a bone - your children won't inherit that. The piece of Horcrux-soul won't have altered Harry's genetic code.

This completely gorgeous banner, which makes me happier than a squirrel, was made by Hokey

I think what is was that made the creation of a Horcrux 'Dark' magic was that a person needed to commit a truly evil act (killing someone) in order for the soul to be split and hidden in something else. Having a child seems like it would be the opposite of that. Is there anywhere where it's written that having a child is some sort of act of evil. Maybe giving birth to Voldemort or Grindelwald was an act of evil.

Seventh Year
GryffindorBeing Chased by Singing Dwarves with Valentines

Join Date

Aug 2010

Location

Behind my piano

Posts

701

Children have always been portrayed as the opposite of evil and are usually a symbol of innocence. I don't think that having a child could create a Horcrux. As well, your soul is part of you and is for only you. You can't pass you soul off to another person. And I don't think that giving birth to Voldemort or Grindewald can be considered evil...Voldemort and Grindewald were evil because they chose to. They made themselves who they are, not their mothers. Maple feels bad for arguing OliveOil Med's post...

In the HP series, the soul is viewed as a distinct entity residing within the body. A soul can leave the body wholly or partially to posess another's body (PS/SS and OotP), can be taken from the body without harming the body itself via the Dementor's Kiss (PoA), and can be split and reside in objects with only some harm to the body in Horcruxes (HPB and DH). Therefore, I doubt that any soul residing within the parent's body would impact offspring, which are produced by reproduction of bodies.

Also, creation of Horcruxes is an intentional process that is deeply evil and probably involves some highly complicated and obscure magic. What you seem to be thinking of would be unintentional, so I don't think it would work.

Well, we don't really know what happened with Grindelwald's parents, but given that Voldemort's mum slipped his dad Amorentia, which made him love her, and apparently killed Voldemort's ability to love or understand love...

then maybe giving birth to Voldemort was an act of evil. He was doomed to be a sociopath from the start, basically. Poor guy.

Originally Posted by OliveOil_Med
Maybe giving birth to Voldemort or Grindelwald was an act of evil.

Well, we don't really know what happened with Grindelwald's parents, but given that Voldemort's mum slipped his dad Amorentia, which made him love her, and apparently killed Voldemort's ability to love or understand love...

then maybe giving birth to Voldemort was an act of evil. He was doomed to be a sociopath from the start, basically. Poor guy.

I remember reading that Jo said in a post-DH interview that if Merope had lived, Tom Riddle (Jr.) wouldn't have turned out the way he did. This would mean that giving birth to Tom wasn't the act of evil that doomed him to a life of evil.

Besides, one of the big points of the HP books is that it is the choices you make determine who you become and what you do, not destiny. Tom and Harry have parallel life experiences (orphaned young, raised in rough and unloving circumstances) to illustrate this point.

Finally, while nobody could argue that Merope feeding Tom Riddle, Sr. a love potion was right, I don't think that in the morality of series that it or anything else that led to the birth of Voldemort was evil. I don't think any act of love is portrayed as evil. Poor mixed-up Severus Snape, whose interest in the Dark Arts first alienates and then leads to the death of the woman he loves, comes out of the series one of the biggest heroes, after all. Yes, Merope feeds the original Tom Riddle a love potion, but she ultimately loves him to give him free will. Her original actions were wrong, but especially in the light of her later ones, did this make conceiving Voldemort evil?

Children have always been portrayed as the opposite of evil and are usually a symbol of innocence. I don't think that having a child could create a Horcrux.

I didn't mean 'create a Horcrux,' but more meant it as an opposite to creating a Horcrux - Love vs. evil. If it takes evil to create a Horcrux, I was curious as to whether an act of love (and having a child would definitely be a perfect example of an act of love) would be enough to shatter or break a Horcrux - I know it's not mentioned in the book, but the only instance of a Horcrux being in a human being (who can love) is Harry, whom that simply didn't happen to. If an act of evil can rip apart a soul - something, you lot mentioned, was not physical or tangible - then why does it not stand to reason that an act of love - the creation of life! - not drastically alter the soul (and thereby the Horcrux within the soul) as well? I'm talking the creation of that child - the magic of the Horcrux would reside in that conception, with the mother throughout the pregnancy, and then burst forth from the mother within the magic, the soul of the child.

It's interesting that you lot separate soul from birth. But isn't it the very soul that makes us who we are? I imagined the soul of a child to be bred from conception. No two people are identical, having the same soul. I imagine then that there is something about the soul that must derive from the parents - how else would that soul come into being? The soul doesn't necessarily have characteristics like the mind would - I'm just like my father in so many ways, but that's a nature-vs.-nurture discussion- and so I don't say that Voldemort is evil because his parents passed down a bad soul. His soul became mangled and twisted through his actions - WHICH SHOW a mind-body-magic-soul connection within the Harry Potter universe.